Author 




Class Ilti JL<LL 
Book ._r_JCl5 



1914a- 



Title 



Imprint 



io — aviis*-* upo 



UNITED STATES-CANADA FISHERIES 



HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SIXTY-THIRD CONGRESS 

Second Session 

on 



H. R. 13005 



FEBRUARY 26, 1914 



STATEMENTS OF 



DR. H. M. SMITH and 
HON. JOSEPH W. FORDNEY 



WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

1M4 






y 



COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS. 

House of Representatives. 

sixty-third congress. 

(Committee room, gallery floor, west corridor. Telephone 230.) 
HENRY D. FLOOD, Virginia, Chairman. 



WILLIAM G. SHARP, Ohio. 
CYRUS CLINE, Indiana. 
JEFFERSON M. LEVY, New York. 
JAMES M. CURLEY, Massachusetts. 
J. CHARLES LINTHICUM, Maryland. 
ROBERT E. DIFENDERFER, Pennsylva: 
WILLIAM S. GOODWIN, Arkansas. 
CHARLES M. STEDMAN, North Carolina. 
EDWARD W. TOWNSEND, New Jersey. 
B. P. HARRISON, Mississippi. 



CHARLES B. SMITH, New York. 
JOHN R. WALKER, Georgia. 
HORACE W. VAUGHAN, I exa . 
HENRY A. COOPER, Wisconsin. 
RICHARD BARTHOLDT, Missouri. 
GEORGE W. FAIRCHILD, New York. 
STEPHEN G. PORTER, Pennsylvania. 
W. D. B. AINEY, Pennsylvania. 
JOHN J. ROGERS, Massachusetts. 
HENRY' W. TEMPLE, Pennsylvania. 



Robert Catlett, Clerk. 
B. F. Open, Assistant Clerk. 



0. Of 0, 

JAN 13 1915 



UNITED STATES-CANADA FISHERIES. 



Committee on Foreign Affairs, 

House of Representatives, 

Thursday, February 26, 1914. 
The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m., Hon. Henry D. Flood 
(chairman) presiding. 

There were present before the committee Hon. Joseph W. Ford- 
ney, representing the eight district of Michigan; Hon. Halvor Steener- 
son, representing the ninth district of Minnesota; Dr. H. M. Smith, 
Commissioner of Fisheries: and Mr. John S. Webb, of Washington, 
D. C. 

The Chairman. Gentlemen, Mr. Ainey has a resolution upon which 
he wishes to speak, but before we take that up I have a letter which I 
have received from the President, and which I will read: 

The White House, 
Washington, February 24,- 1914. 
My Dear Mr. Flood: I trust that no effort may be spared to secure the immediate 
passage of the bill now pending in the House to give effect to the treaty between the 
United States and Great Britain of April 11, 1908, for the preservation of the food 
fishes in the waters contiguous to the United States and Canada. In reality, I believe 
there are two bills pending in the House, namely, H. R. 13005, introduced by your- 
self on the 5th instant, and H. R. 13300, introduced by Mr. Woodruff on the 12th 
instant, but I am advised that these bills are the same, except that H. R. 13300 
exempts Saginaw Bay from the operation of the present international regulations 
under the treaty — an exemption to which the commissioners on both sides have 
agreed. 

The commissioner on the part of the United States is Dr. Hugh M. Smith, our 
Commissioner of Fisheries. He stands ready to furnish to you or to your committee 
any information which may be desired. I may say, however, that the pending 
bills embody only what has been agreed on between the two Governments and that 
there does not appear now to exist any objection on either side to their enactment. 
Similar legislation was adopted and was put into effect on the part of Canada three 
years ago, and we are informed that unless this Government shall be in a position 
on the 1st of March reciprocally to perform its obligations, the object of the treaty, 
which is of manifest importance to the permanent interests of both countries, will 
be defeated. 

Sincerely, yours, 

Woodrow Wilson. 
Hon. Henry D. Flood, 

Chairman Committee on Foreign Affairs, 

House of Representatives. 

I will also read this letter, which I have received from the Secre- 
tary of State: 

Department of State, 

Washington, February 9, 1914. 
My Dear Mr. Flood: I am advised that you introduced into the House on the 5th 
instant a bill to carry into effect the treaty between the United States and Great 
Britain of April 11, 1908, for the preservation of food fishes in the waters contiguous 
to the United States and Canada. The matter is very urgent, as only a brief time 
remains in which to adopt the legislation necessary to carry the treaty into effect. 
I therefore hope that early hearings may be held on the bill in order to hasten the 
bringing of it before the House for passage. 
Very sincerely, yours, 

W. J. Bryan. 
Hon. Henry D. Flood, 
House of Representatives. 

3 



4 UNITED STATES-CANADA FISHERIES. 

Now, Dr. Smith, Commissioner of Fisheries, is here to explain the 
bill, and we will be glad to hear from him now. 

STATEMENT OF DR. H. M. SMITH, COMMISSIONER OF FISH- 
ERIES. 

Dr. Smith. I have been brought into this at the eleventh hour, 
Mr. Chairman, for the purpose of trying to save this treaty, which we 

regard as of very great importance to the fishery interests, along the 
whole northern boundary of the United State-. These fisheries are 
worth on our side perhaps $30,000,000 annually and on the Canadian 
side nearly as much. This treaty was negotiated and ratified in 
1908, and under it commissioners were appointed on behalf of the 
United States and Canada for the purpose of investigating condi- 
tions in the boundary waters and deciding on a uniform and common 
system of fishery regulation. The commissioners made their report 
with regulations attached, and this report with the regulations was 
transmitted t<> the Congress of the United States in 1910 and to the 
Canadian Parliament in the same year. The Canadian Parliament 
immediately adopted the regulations. In 1911. one year after, the 
matter came up in the Senate and a bill was passed accepting the 
regulations as stated in the Senate bills, but with the two most im- 
portant fishing regions along our whole border entirely stricken out. 
namely. Puget Sound and a large part of the Great Lakes. 

The Chairman. Have you a copy of that treaty with you, the 
treaty of 1908? 

Dr. Smith. No; I have no copy of it with me. 

The Chairman. I incorporate it in the hearings at this point: 

Treaty Concerning Fisheries in United States and Canadian Waters. 
I 

Concluded Apr. 11, 1908; ratification advised bv the Senate Apr. 17. 1908; ratified by the President 
May 11. 190S; ratifications exchanged June 4, 19P>; proclaimed July 1. 191 8.] 

The United States of America and His Majesty Edward the Seventh, of the United 
Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and of the British dominions beyond the seas, 
Kin", and Emperor of India, equally recognizing the desirability of uniform and 
effective measures for the protection, preservation, and propagation of the food fishes 
in the waters contiguous to the United States and the Dominion of Canada, have 
resolved to conclude a convention for these purposes, and have named as their pleni- 
potentiaries: 

The President of the United States of America, Elihu Root, Secretary of State of 
the United States; and 

His Britannic Majesty, the Right Hon. James Bryce, O. M.. His Majesty's ambas- 
sador extraordinary and plenipotentiary at Washington; 

Who. having exchanged their full powers, found in due form, have agreed to and 
signed the following articles: 

Article I. 

The times, season, and methods of fishing in the waters contiguous to the United 
States and Canada as specified in Article IV of this convention, and the nets, engines, 
war apparatus, and appliances which may be used therein shall be fixed and deter- 
mined by uniform and common international regulations, restrictions, and provisions; 
and to that end the high contracting parties agree to appoint, within three months after 
this convention is proclaimed, a commission to be known as the International Fisheries 
Commission, consisting of one person named by each Government. 



UNITED STATES-CANADA FISHERIES. 

Article II. 

It shall be the duty of this International Fisheries Commission, within six months 
after being named, to prepare a system of uniform and common international regula- 
tions for the protection and preservation of the food fishes in each of the waters pre- 
scribed in Article IV of this convention, which regulations shall embrace close seasons, 
limitations as to the character, size, and manner of use of nets, engines, gear, apparatus, 
and other appliances; a uniform Bystem of registry by each Government in waters 
where required for the more convenient regulation of commercial fishing by its own 
citizens or subjects within its own territorial waters or any part of such waters; an 
arrangement for concurrent measures for the propagation of fish; and such other 
provisions and measures as the commission shall deem necessary. 

Article III. 

The two Governments engage to put into operation and to enforce by legislation 
and executive action, with as little delay as possible, the regulations, restrictions, and 
provisions with appropriate penalties for all breaches thereof; and the date when 
they shall be put into operation shall be fixed by the concurrent proclamations of the 
President of the United States and the Governor General of the Dominion of Canada 
in council. 

And it is further agreed that jurisdiction shall be exercised by either Government, 
as well over citizens or subjects of either party apprehended for violation of the regu- 
lations in any of its own waters to which said regulations apply, as over its own citi- 
zens or subjects found within its own jurisdiction who shall have violated said regu- 
lations within the waters of the other party. 

Article IV. 

It is agreed that the waters within which the aforementioned regulations are to be 
applied shall be as follows: (1) The territorial waters of the Passamaquoddy Bay; 
(2) the St. John and St. Croix Rivers; (3) Lake Memphremagog; (4) Lake Cham- 
plain; (5) the St. Lawrence River, where the said river constitutes the international 
boundary; (6) Lake Ontario; (7) the Niagara River; (8) Lake Erie; (9) the waters 
connecting Lake Erie and Lake Huron, including Lake St. Clair; (10) Lake Huron, 
excluding Georgian Bay but including North Channel; (11) St. Marys River and 
Lake Superior; "(12) Rainy River and Rainy Lake; (13) Lake of the Woods; (14) the 
Strait of San Juan de Fuca, those parts of Washington Sound, the Gulf of Georgia, and 
Puget Sound lying between the parallels of 48° 10' and 49° 20'; (15) and such other 
contiguous waters as may be recommended by the International Fisheries Commis- 
sion and approved by the two Governments. It is agreed on the part of Great Britain 
that the Canadian Government will protect by adequate regulations the food fishes 
frequenting the Fraser River. 

The two Governments engaged to have prepared as soon as practicable charts of 
the waters described, in this article, with the international boundary line indicated 
thereon; and to establish such additional boundary monuments, buoys, and marks 
as may be recommended by the commission. 

Article V. 

The International Fisheries Commission shall continue in existence so long as this 
convention shall be in force, and each Government shall have the power to fill, and 
shall fill from time to time, any vacancy which may occur in its representation on 
the commission. Each Government shall pay its own commissioner, and any joint 
expenses shall be paid by the two Governments in equal moieties. 

Article VI. 

The regulations, restrictions, and provisions provided for in this convention shall 
remain in force for a period of four years from the date of their executive promulga- 
tion, and thereafter until one year from the date when either the Government of the 
United States or of Great Britain shall give notice to tin- other of its desire for their 
revision, and immediately upon such notice being given the commission shall pro- 
ceed to make a revision thereof, which revised regulations, if adopted and promul- 
gated by the President of the United States and the Governor General of Canada in 
council, shall remain in force for another period of four years and thereafter until 



6 UNITED STATES-CANADA FISHERIES. 

one year from the date when a further notice of revision is given as above provided 
in this article. It shall, however, be in the power of the two Governments, by joint 
or concurrent action upon the recommendation of the commission, to make modifica- 
tions at any time in the regulations. 

Article VII. 

The present convention shall be duly ratified by the President of the United States, 

by and with the advice and consent of tie Senate thereof, and by His Britannic 

Majesty, and the ratifications shall be exchanged in Washington as soon as practicable. 

In faith whereof the respective plenipotentiaries have signed the present convention 

in duplicate, and have hereunto affixed their seals. 

Done at Washington the 11th day of April, in the year of our Lord 1908. 

Elihu Root. [seal.] 
James Brtce. [seal.] 

Dr. Smith. The matter appears to have been dropped at that point, 
and so far as I am aware mi further consideration of the treaty or the 
regulations made under the treaty have been given in Congress. The 
British Government — or the Canadian Government — have repeatedly 
brought the matter to the attention of our State Department — at 
least I am so informed — and a few months ago the British ambassador 
communicated with our State Department and notified us that 
Canada was getting very anxious in regard to these regulations, and 
Great Britain would be inclined to withdraw from the treaty and let 
the treaty lapse unless our Government did something, and March 
1 was named as the date when Canada would take this action. 

The Chairman. Well, Dr. Smith, the situation here is that if the 
committee decides to report this bill it can not be taken up in the 
House before Monday, and if the House passed it, it will be on the 
2d of March. Do you think that will be early enough '. 

Mr. Harrison. You mean, under unanimous consent? 

The Chairman. Suspension of the rules. The Speaker has agreed 
to recognize me for this purpose if the committee reports the bill. 

Dr. Smith. I have understood from Mr. Moore, of the State Depart- 
ment, that he has communicated with the ambassador, ami has 
notified him that the matter is under way, and I am inclined to 
believe that any reasonable extension of time would be granted by 
the British Government. 

Mr. Townsend. This will practically carry into effect the provisions 
of the law which you have advocated before; it places under Federal 
control for the first time in the history of the country fisheries which 
have heretofore been administered by the States. The ground for it 
is that these are international waters and that the States are unable 
to treat with the Canadian Provinces or any alien government on the 
other side of the boundary. 

The Chairman. I notice that this bill carries an appropriation of 
$30,000 — it authorizes the. appropriation of $30,000 for this work. 

Dr. Smith. That is a mere estimate and is about one-sixtli of the 
amount carried by the bill when it was presented to the Senate in 1910. 

The Chairman. What I was going to ask you is this: The Diplo- 
matic and Consular appropriation bill carries $2,000 for International 
Fisheries ( Jommission. If this bill becomes a law, you would not need 
that appropriation, would you I 

Dr. Smith. I know nothing about the $2,000 appropriation in the 
Diplomatic and Consular bill, but I judge that that was put in to cover 
miscellaneous expenses in connection with the investigations, and if 



UNITED STATES-CANADA FISHERIES. 7 

this bill passes and the amount carried by it is appropriated there will 
be no other appropriation necessary. 

The Chairman. Is there any opposition to this bill from the States 
in which these international waters are located? 

Dr. Smith. There was considerable opposition to the bill as origi- 
nally presented to the Senate. The oj>position was localized, how- 
ever, in Puget Sound and in Saginaw Bay on Lake Huron. The 
basis for the opposition was the belief that — hi Puget Sound — the 
American interests have not been properly safeguarded, and that 
the investigation has not been conducted with reference to the Amer- 
ican industries. 

In Saginaw it was a comparatively trivial opposition, based on 
the provision of the regulations in regard to size of mesh, which the 
fishing interests said was too large to permit the capture of the 
fish, the peculiar kind, of white fish of Lake Huron that are found in 
Saginaw Bay. 

The Chairman. Were such changes made as would remedy the 
objections of the Puget Sound people? 

Dr. Smith. No changes have been made in the regulations what- 
ever. The Canadian Government has ratified these regulations and 
the point that is insisted on now is that we must do likewise or else 
throw the whole business open again. But there is a porvision in 
this bill for an immediate investigation of the fisheries along the 
whole border and a report to Congress at this next session, which 
shall embody any necessary modifications of the regulations. 

The Chairman. That satisfies the Puget Sound people, does it? 

Dr. Smith. I have been in conference with a large number of peo- 
ple from Puget Sound who were strong^ opposing this bill a few 
years ago, and with the exception of possibly one organization the 
people there seem willing for this bill or a similar bill to pass, with 
the understanding that the commissioners of the two sides will inves- 
tigate and determine what the present conditions are and draw new 
regulations in accordance with present-day conditions. I may say 
that in my opinion many of these regulations are unsatisfactory and 
obsolete. 

The Chairman. And will be changed ? 

Dr. Smith. They will be changed. 

Mr. Towxseni). Is there not a provision against changing them 
contained in the hill itself? 

The Chairman. No; there is a provision for changing them, and 
that satisfies a large majority of the Puget Sound people who ob- 
jected to the regulations originally. 

Dr. Smith. So I have been informed. 

Mr. Harrison. Do they claim that it is a matter of State jurisdic- 
tion over these waters I 

Dr. Smith. That was one of their claims a few years ago when they 
were opposing the passage of a similar bill in the Senate. 

Mr. Harrison. This applies merely to fish in boundary waters ? 

Dr. Smith. Absolutely. 

Mr. Harrison. And no other waters ? 

Dr. Smith. Yes. We are dealing with the Canadian Government 
on one side and the States are entirely unable to cope with the situa- 
tion. They have been trying to do so for many years. 

Mr. Harrison. Why are they unable to cope with the situation? 



8 UNITED STATES-CANADA FISHERIES. 

Dr. Smith. Because no regulations which they may decide on be- 
tween themselves, or between themselves on one side and the Cana- 
dian Governemt on the other, or between one State on one side and 
the Canadian Government on the other, have any bindi ng effect. 
There have been tentative agreements between the State of Washing- 
ton and British Columbia, and those agreements entered into as 
solemnly as such things can be were violated within one week on the 
Washington side. 

Mr. Harbison. Are they powerless to enforce the law. or arc they 
powerless to make any laws? 

Mr. Townsend. They are powerless to agree upon anything. 

Dr. Smith. They are powerless to enter into any agreement that 
will hold them. 

Mr. Townsend. That very same question was discussed in another 
bill, upon which Dr. Smith gave testimony here. Virginia and Mary- 
land have been trying for 100 years to get to some agreement and 
have not done so yet, because the two States make different regula- 
tions, and there is no way of harmonizing them. 

Mi-. Ainey. Is that because they can not agree, or because they 
•have not been able to enforce the agreement '. 

Mr. Townsend. Because they can not agree. 

Mr. Harrison. The same thing exists in my State in respect to 
oysters. They could not agree on the boundaries and they lwive had 
a big lawsuit about it. 

The Chairman. Has the Federal Government ever exercised juris- 
diction in these waters before \ 

Dr. Smith. No, sir. 

The Chairman. It will be the first law giving the Federal Govern- 
ment jurisdiction of the. fish in these waters? 

Dr. Smith. So I understand. Now, while the situation is critical 
in Puget Sound, it is much more so in the Lake regions where there 
are four States on one side and the Canadian Government on the 
other exercising jurisdiction over some of the water. 

Mr. C. B. Smith. We have a condition up there where if the fisher- 
men pass beyond a certain point they are in danger of being fired 
on by a Canadian gunboat. The Canadian Government keeps a gun- 
boat there to protect its fishing grounds. 

Dr. Smith. In view of the international aspects, which have been 
carefully gone into, I believe the Government is safe in going ahead. 

Mr. Harrison. May I ask if Mr. Moore gave an opinion favorable 
to this legislation ? 

Dr. Smith. John Basset t Moore is exceedingly anxious for the 
ratification. I have been in conference with him repeatedly for a 
number of months. 

The Chairman. Have you got the opinion of any Attorney General 
who has investigated this question ? 

Dr. Smith. No; I have not. 

The Chairman. Do you know where we could get thai \ 

Dr. Smith. This treaty was negotiated when Mr. Root was Secre- 
tary of State. 

The Chairman. I suppose we could get it at the State Department. 
The State Department, as I understand it, called on the Attorney 
General for an opinion about it \ 

Dr. Smith. That is my understanding. 



UNITED STATES-CANADA FISHERIES. 9 

I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, that the most important fish in 
all the Great Lakes is the white fish, and a white fish swimming in 
the Lakes comes under seven different jurisdictions. There is abso- 
lute lack of any protection that is worth while for these white fish in 
Lake Erie and other waters, and the catch of white fish in Lake Erie 
has decreased 80 per cent, and in Lake Ontario over 90 per cent — I 
think it is 98 per cent. 

Mr. Walker. In how long ? 

Dr. Smith. In about 15 years. 

The Chairman. What is the situation with reference to Saginaw 
Bay now, with regard to the opposition ? 

Dr. Smith. Saginaw Bay, according to a uniform agreement which 
we have had with the Canadian commissioner, will be entirely elimi- 
nated from the operation of this treaty owing to local objection and to 
the fact that Saginaw Bay is not strictly a boundary water. 

The Chairman. That will be satisfactory to the Canadian Govern- 
ment '. 

Dr. Smith. Entirely so. I have assurances in letters and telegrams 
that it will be entirely satisfactory. 

Mr. Harrison. Now, these regulations, attached to this bill, would 
be really a part of the law if passed — are they along the same lines 
with respect to the tentative understanding between the various 
States and those Provinces in Canada, or is there much difference 
between these rules and the regulations that the States have tried to 
put in force? 

Dr. Smith. The laws of the different States were adopted by the 
internal commissioners, and are incorporated in this section. There 
is no radical departure from existing legislation on behalf of the 
States. In some cases the States were unable to act, but as far as 
they do, these regulations have really been strongly indorsed by the 
States. I have letters from the proper officials of all the boundary 
States, with perhaps one exception, strongly advocating this bill, 
or a similar bill that will give effect to the treaty. 

Mr. Harrison. Is there much opposition from parties fishing in 
these waters to this legislation? 

Dr. Smith. No more than there would be on the part of interests 
affected by legislation generally. There is always some opposition 
on the part of the fishermen to any kind of legislation, but I am not 
advised that it is particularly strong in these waters. 

Mr. Harrison. Are some of the fishermen in favor of the legisla- 
tion ? 

Dr. Smith. I t bink t hat the vast majority of independent fishermen, 
who have large interests at stake, would like to see something of this 
kind done. 

The Chairman. Have you anything else to say on this subject? 

Dr. Smith. I have nothing else to say, but will be very glad to 
answer any questions, so far as I am able to do so. 

Mr. Ainey. I would like to ask one question. In reference to the 
difficulty of enforcing the law in the waters between Washington and 
British Columbia, is it because of jurisdiction being brought into the 
question or because of failure to make an agreement between them? 

Dr. Smith. There was an agreement between the fishermen on the 
Canadian side and the fishermen on the Washington side with regard 
to the closed season and the use of certain kinds of apparatus. 



10 UNITED STATES-CANADA FISHEEIES. 

Mr. Ainey. But that was never attempted to be worked into law? 
I am not at all familiar with the matter and am merely trying to 
develop the facts. Was there any such law attempted to be passed 
by the State of Washington ? 

Dr. Smith. Covering this particular point, you mean i 

Mr. Ainey. Yes. 

Dr. Smith. I could not say about that. I am reasonably familiar 
with the fisheries along those boundaries, but I have not been in those 
regions for some years and some of those details have escaped me. 

Mr. Harrison. This bill does not create a commission, does it? 

Dr. Smith. It creates a commission, of which I am the American 
head, serving without pay. 

Mr. Harrison. The members of the commission will not receive 
any pay ? 

Dr. Smith. There is no salary passed on our side, but you will 
observe that provision is made for the creation of a division of inter- 
national fisheries in the Bureau of Fisheries. 

Mr. Harrison. Where is that in the bill '. 

Dr. Smith. Page 3, section 3, beginning with line 22. 

Mr. Townsend. Which bill is that? 

The Chairman. H. R. 13005 is the bill. 

Dr. Smith. Up to this time the commissioners have been salaried. 

The Chairman. You succeeded Dr. Jordan as commissioner on the 
part of the United States, did you not? 

Dr. Smith. I succeeded Joe Hedges. He succeeded Dr. Jordan. 

Mr. Townsend. This division provided for in this bill is merely to 
facilitate the work of the Bureau of Fisheries ( 

Dr. Smith. The treaty provides for the administration of any regu- 
lations made under the treaty by the Bureau of Fisheries, and this 
--I'd ion in the pending bill is to organize a division to look after this. 

Mr. Townsend. Page 3 of the Flood bill, lines 21 and 23. I see 
you have $30,000 appropriated here on page 4. 

Dr. Smith. That amount suggested in the bill is absolutely an 
estimate, you know. 

The Chairman. Line 22, page 3, of the bill creates the division of 
international fisheries in the Bureau of Fisheries. 

Mr. Harrison. Have we not been carrying an appropriation in 
the appropriation bill for a commission of fisheries? 

The Chairman. We did up to last year. We did not carry it last 
year, and they have asked it again tins year. That was the $2,000 
for the commissioners, the position that 1 asked Dr. Smith about 
just now. That was the position held by Joe Hedges up in New 
York, and formerly held by Dr. David Starr Jordan, and which the 
Commissioner of Fisheries now is holding. 

Dr. Smith. These regulations which were drawn up as long ago 
as KK10 and 1910 are no longer applicable to certain fishes in certain 
sections, and it is the expectation that a very thorough revision will 
be necessary, and it is our plan to report at the next session of Con- 
gress a new set of regulations for adoption. These regulations will 
meet present-day conditions and will be decided upon only after very 
full conference with all the interests represented. 

Mr. Harrison. Has Canada passed a law like this already? 

Dr. Smith. They passed a law in 1910. 

Mr. Harrison. Exactly like this? 



UNITED STATES-CANADA FISHERIES. 11 

Dr. Smith. They adopted every one of those regulations as origin- 
ally proposed by the commission appointed for the purpose- 
Mr. Harrison. Are their penalties for violations about the same 
as in this bill ? 

Dr. Smith. The body of this bdl is about the same as the Canadian 
law. Canada has adopted that schedule, which has been made a 
part of the bill. 

Mr. Harrison. You have pretty drastic penalties attached in this 
bill. Are they about as drastic as those in Canada? 

Dr. Smith. I believe they are less so. 

Mr. Harrison. Less drastic? 

Dr. Smith. Yes. I may say this, Mr. Chairman, that the pro- 
visions of the bill proper are subject to any modifications that the 
committee may deem proper. These introductory sections do not 
affect the treaty or the. regulations. 

The Chairman. This appropriation of $.30,000 will pay the ex- 
penses of reexamining into this schedule and making such changes as 
you propose to make, and also the expense of the division of interna- 
tional fisheries of the Bureau of Fisheries and the compensation of 
wardens, deputy wardens, inspectors and so forth, I presume., for the 
six months beginning January 1, 1915, and running to July 1, 1915 i 

Dr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Then, of course, afterwards there will have to be 
an annual appropriation to maintain that division in the Bureau of 
Fisheries, to pay the expenses of wardens, inspectors, and so forth? 

Dr. Smith. It would be easily possible to make this service self- 
supporting if Congress so desired, by the adoption of a like system, 
under which all fishermen and all fishing apparatus within these 
boundary waters should be licensed and pay a small fee. 

Mr. TowxsF.xn. As they do now in several of the States. 

Dr. Smith. In nearly all the States. This might interfere with the 
revenues of some of the States — their revenues from the fishing 
industry and 1 do not suggest it or advocate it, but I merely men- 
tion it tor your consideration. 

Mi\ Fairchild. What is your personal opinion as to the desira- 
bility of such a thing ? 

Dr. Smith. It would run counter to the interests of some of the 
States which are now deriving quite a revenue from fisheries which 
are probably taxed now as much as they should be. There are taxes 
of several hundreds of dollars per annum on certain kinds of apparatus 
and minor taxing on other apparatus all the way down the line. It 
would be entirely proper, however, constitutionally, to impose a light 
tax on the fisheries in these international waters. I think, however, 
that the good to the whole country from the regulation of these 
fisheries will vastly outweigh any little revenue that we might obtain 
from licensing them. 

The Chairman. Your opinion of this schedule is that it will have 
to be changed in a good many particulars? 

Dr. Smith. It is quite unsatisfactory to me and also to the Cana- 
dians. 

The Chairman. You will proceed within the next year to agree 
upon the changes ? 

Dr. Smith. Within the present year. 

Mr. Harrison. Who was the person who made these schedules? 



12 UNITED STATES-CANADA FISHERIES. 

Dr. Smith. David Starr Jordan, commissioner on behalf of the 
United States, and Prof. Prince, the Canadian commissioner of fish- 
eries, on behal of the Canadian Government. 

Mr. Ainey. Should this bill be adopted, it might make it difficult 
for you to rearrange your schedule until after you were authorized by 
further legislation by Congress. 

Mr. Townsend. It does not take until 1915. 

Mr. Harrison. This goes right to the point. The commissioner 
caii not make a report at once, and if we should not adopt it now and 
wait for a revised schedule, it would be several years before anything 
would happen, and Canada has been waiting four years now. 

Dr. Smith. Yes. 

Mr. Townsend. And there is some danger that Canada would 
revoke the agreement. 

Dr. Smith. I am satisfied, from talk I have had with the Canadian 
minister, and the former minister of marine and fisheries, that unless 
we do something promptly, this treaty will be allowed to lapse. 

The Chairman. I read a letter from the President which goes into 
that subject, Mr. Townsend. 

Mr. Townsend. Oh, I guess that was before I came in. 

Dr. Smith. These regulations, once agreed upon, must be adopted 
in toto. Personally I would prefer to have Congress approve an}^ 
regulations that are drawn up. This is a very large and important 
subject; we are assuming jurisdiction for the first time in a matter 
that has heretofore concerned the State alone. 

The Chairman. You mean, that you would like to have Congress 
go into the detads of this schedule ? 

Dr. Smith. I w T ould like Congress to retain the powers to approve 
any regulations that are made. 

The Chairman. To approve or disapprove the entire schedule? 

Dr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you think it would be wise for Congress to 
undertake to legislate in detail on these various items \ 

Dr. Smith. I hardly see how it could be possible for Congress to 
inform itself in regard to the detads of these regulations. 

Mr. Steenerson. Have you had any correspondence with any 
fishermen in the Lake of the Woods district '. 

Dr. Smith. Xot lately. Personally, I have not hail any corre- 
spondence with them at all, but I know of correspondence that has 
come to the bureau. 

Mr. Steenerson. Do you know whether they are opposed to 
these regulations ( 

Dr. Smith. There was a very remarkable petition against these 
regulations from fishermen on tile Lake of the Woods. 

Mi-. Steenerson. To your office? 

Dr. Smith. It came to our office — perhaps not addressed to us 
officially, but to members of our staff who had been cooperating with 
the International Fisheries Commission in the investigation of 
fisheries along the boundaries. They made the claim that there wa> 
no necessity for regulation of fisheries in the Lake of the Woods, as 
the supply had been maintained. As a matter of fact, the supply 
has dropped off 90 per cent in the case of some species, like sturgeon, 
one of the most valuable fishes there. Sturgeon have been practically 






UNITED STATES-CANADA FISHERIES. 13 

wiped out in the Lake of the Woods through the lack of any pro- 
tection. 

Mr. Steeneeson. I notice you provide a five-year closed season in 
the Lake of the Woods. 

Dr. Smith. The sturgeon is doomed in all these boundary waters 
unless some radical action is taken. 

Mr. Steenerson. Are you familiar with the hearings that were 
held on the Lake of the Woods fisheries some years ago ? 

Dr. Smith. No, sir. 

Mr. Steenerson. This matter was very extensively discussed 
there, and 1 believe it was shown that the sturgeon, of all other fish, 
that he was a spawn eater and went around and consumed all the 
spawn of the white fish, pike, and trout, and that since the sturgeon 
dec reused the other food fish had immensely increased. It is a matter 
that I know personally, that the food fishes in the Lake of the Woods 
have greatly increased in the last few years and those were the senti- 
ments of persons from Chicago, St. Paul, and Minneapolis, that the 
pike and trout and white fish had increased as the sturgeon decreased. 

Dr. Smith. Well, the most valuable fish in any (if these interna- 
tional waters is the sturgeon, and they were always very abundant 
until the fishermen went after them without regard to the preserva- 
tion of the supply. 

Mr. Steenerson. Well, I have been familiar — in fact, I was in- 
terested in fisheries in Lake of the Woods many years ago, when 
sturgeon was supposed to be plentiful, and it was then only about 
5 or 10 per cent of the total catch. Of course, it is valuable on 
account of the caviar. Caviar sold then for G5 cents, and it is now $2 
a pound. 

Dr. Smith. Almost any kind of sturgeon caught in our large rivers 
and lakes will bring a fisherman $100 apiece, and sometimes much 
more. 

Mr. Steenerson. How big a sturgeon would that be? How old 
would such a sturgeon as that be? 

Dr. Smith. Well, the sturgeon is a fish of very slow growth. 

Mr. Steenerson. He would be at least 100 years old to be such a 
size as that, would he not ? 

Dr. Smith. I should not think he would be as old as that. 

Mr. Steenerson. That is what they claim up there. 

Dr. Smith. A closed term of 5 years would be absolutely insigni- 
ficant on sturgeon. 

Mr. Steenerson. A 5 years' closed season on sturgeon would be 
absolutely insignificant ? 

Dr. Smith. Yes. The State of Virginia has put in a 10-year closed 
season on sturgeon. 

Mr. Steenerson. You are not familiar with the discussion of this 
sturgeon question in the Lake of the Woods ? 

Dr. Smith. No, sir. 

Mr. Steenerson. Has your office got the record of that hearing, 
Doctor ? 

• Dr. Smith. I believe the papers are in the custody of the bureau 
now, but I have not been over them. 

Mr. Town send. Those healings were not held at your instigation — 
at the instigation of the Bureau of Fisheries ? 

Dr. Smith. No; they were under the State Department. 



14 UNITED STATES-CAXADA FISHERIES. 

Mr. Steexersox. Do you know whether or not the regulations in 
regard to the Lake of the Woods, as to the nets and size of mesh, and 
all that, corresponds with the laws of Minnesota? 

Dr. Smith. They correspond very closely with the laws of Minne- 
sota and the Canadian laws along the same body of water. I have 
been in rather active correspondence, with the fishing interests along 
the bonier for the last two or three months and have heard some- 
thing in the way of complaints from the Lake of the Woods. 

Mr. Steexersox. I do not think they know about the pendency 
of the bill up there, or I think we would have heard something about 
the closed season for sturgeon. 

Dr. Smith. It may be that they will indorse the view that the 
sturgeon is a very destructive fish, but it has been regarded as very 
harmless. 

Mr. Steexersox. Harmless, except for consuming the spawn of 
other fishes. 

Dr. Smith. But all fishes consume the spawn of other fish, and 
the pike, which you mention as being injured by the sturgeon, is one 
of the most destructive of all fishes. 

Mr. Steexersox. Yes; but the sturgeon is equipped better for 
that work than any other fish. 

Dr. Smith. On account of his size '. 

Mr. Steexersox. On account of having the mouth under its head. 

Dr. Smith. All of these waters abound in suckers, which have that 
habit of spawn eating very largely. 

Mr. Steexersox. He is better equipped than the sucker, because 
he has his mouth right under his head, and he can take up spawn 
anywhere. I was anxious to know whether they had made any 
protest on that question of closed season. 

Dr. Smith. I nave heard nothing whatever from the Lake of the 
Woods. 

Mr. Steexersox. I sent this bill up there three or four days ago, 
but I have not had time to hear from it. 

The Chairmax. We have heard from people as far away as Puget 
Sound since the bill was introduced. 

Mr. Steexersox. I did not know that the bill had been introduced 
until recently. Mr. Fordney told me about it, and I immediately 
sent it up there for information. All this matter was discussed four 
or five years ago, was it, Doctor ? 

Dr. Smith. Beginning in 1908. 

Mr. Steexersox. When the first bill was introduced ? 

Dr. Smith. As soon as the treaty was ratified. 

Mr. Steenersox. I believe that is all I care to ask. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH W. FORDNEY, A REPRESENTA- 
TIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE EIGHTH DISTRICT OF 
MICHIGAN. 

The Chairmax. Mr. Fordney, would you like to be heard \ 

Mr. Fordxey. Yes, just a few minutes, if you please. I will be 

brief in what I have to say to-day. 

Foui years ago this bill was before the committee in the Senate — ■ 

my recollection is it was the Committee on Commerce at that time. 

The then Commissioner of Fisheries, Mr. Bowers, was opposed to any 

change in the regulations of the size of the mesh of the nets, etc^, 






UNITED STATES-CANADA FISHERIES. 15 

and Senator Lodge took a prominent part in the matter at that 
time and insisted that the treaty should not be ratified until those 
changes were made. Consequently it has lain just that way ever 
since, and I only learned last week that the matter had been brought 
up again. 

Now, the way we had to fix the thing on Lake Huron is this: We 
have a State law, over which we have had a great deal of controversy 
and argument, because this is a matter of very important legislation 
in our State, and finally we have agreed upon regulations for fishing 
in waters, lakes, and riveis there, which are very satisfactory to every- 
body, and we would like to have those regulations retained so far as 
we can, especially with reference to certain of the Lake Huron 
waters. When this matter was up in tin' Senate four years ago, the 
fishermen came down here with samples of herring and various kinds 
of fish caught in the waters of Lake Huron, and they showed con- 
clusively, hom the in t and size of mesh provided for in these regu- 
lations, that the oldest fish of the special family of fish would go 
through that net head first or tail first without touching it at all, 
showing that those regulations would absolutely destroy fishing on 
Lake Huron and on Saginaw Bay. At that time it was suggested 
that they be so changed that they would not include the waters from 
Sand Beach, above Port Huron, up to and including Thunder Bay. 
If you will notice, the waters of Georgian Bay are excluded from the 
provisions of this bill. Now, Georgian Bay is just as much in the 
waters of Lake Huron as Saginaw Bay is or Thunder Bay. It only 
excludes a portion of Georgian Bay, not all of it. 

Mr. Townsend. What is that North Channel spoken of, here? 

Mr. Fordney. That is the St. Marys River to Lake Superior. It 
is a portion of the St. Marys River called the North Channel, between 
Lake Huron and Lake Superior. It does not cut so much figure there, 
but the fishing on Saginaw Bay is a very important industry, especially 
as to herring. 

The Chairman. You understand that the commissioners on the 
part of both Governments have agreed to exclude Saginaw Bay? 

Mr. Fordney. Yes; and I want to say that wherever "Georgian 
Bay" appears you should put in "Saginaw Bay." But I believe that 
the regulations under our State law should prevail from Sand Beach 
up to and including Thunder Bay. I am more particularly interested 
in Saginaw Bay. 

Mr. Townsend. What is the distance between Saginaw Bay and 
Thunder Bay ? 

Mr. Fordney. There is a space between Saginaw Bay and Thunder 
Bay of 50 miles. 

Mr. Townsend. Toward the Port Huron side ? 

Mr. Fordney. No; the other way. 

Mr. Townsend. Toward Mackinac ? 

Mr. Fordney. Yes. 

Mr. Toavnsend. Where do you get Mackinac in there ? 

Mr. Fordney. Under this further provision for trout. The Mack- 
inac trout is really an overgrown specimen of the speckled trout. 
The same sized mesh and net, and so on, prevails from Sand Beach on 
up there that prevails in Saginaw Bay, but if you exclude Saginaw Bay 
and still include in the regulations the same size mesh that you do 
elsewhere, you will destroy the fishing industry from Sand Beach to 



16 UNITED STATES-CANADA FISHEKIES. 

Saginaw Bay. That matter was gone into very thoroughly by the 
fishermen before the committee at that time, and, as I say, they 
brought these lish here, and their nets, and turned them over to me, 
and I kept them at the hotel for quite a while. 

Mr. Harbison. The commissioners on the part of the United State's 
and Great Britain have, come together and formed a treaty. The 
object of this bill is to be put that treaty into effect. Now, what do 
you think about the proposition of either not reporting out the bill or 
changing these schedules in the bill? The Canadian Government has 
already passed a law putting into effect these particular regulations. 

Mr. Fordney. They have had the law, but changed the regulations 
so that they do not destroy the fishing industry in these particular 
waters. If you pass this law with the regulations as written in here, 
and without excluding these waters, you have absolutely destroyed 
them. 

Mr. Harrison. If we should change these schedules, thereby ('hang- 
ing the treaty, and pass the law with changed schedules with respect 
to that, and so forth, then you think the Canadian Government would 
come along and ratify their law, do you ( You think that it would 
not have the effect of destroying the treaty entered into ? 

Mr. Fordney. Now r , understand me — for instance, the herring at 
different points on the Great Lakes is of different sizes from those 
at other points. For instance, Lake Superior herring will be caught 
by the mesh provided for by these regulations, but in Saginaw water 
the herring are of a different size. They are the same fish, the same 
species, but they are a smaller fish, and they will go through the net 
backward and forward, although that same mesh will catch the 
Lake Superior herring and perhaps the Georgian Bay herring. 

The Chairman. But the point is, will the Canadian Government 
feel that they are bound by a treaty which we have violated in not 
adopting the regulations agreed on by our joint commission? 

Mr. Fordney. I think the Canadian Government will not make any 
objection — at least I see no reason why they should — to your ex- 
cluding these waters that have different sizes of fish than are found 
anywhere else that those regulations w T ill cover. 

The Chairman. Could that not be done by the commission in 
their consideration of the changes which they are going to make be- 
tween now and the next session of Congre-s. 

Mr. Fordney. But suppose the Canadian Government should 
object to that? I think here is the place to do it. I think by all 
means here is the place to exclude these waters. They are not inter- 
national waters at all. 

Mr. Harrison. You say these are. not international waters? 

Mr. Fordney. They are not international waters; of course not. 
I really believe it would be wise if you could make this exception. 
I am fully familiar with the territory from Sand Beach up to Saginaw 
Bay and from Saginaw Bay up to and including Thunder Bay. 
Fishing is carried on very extensively in these waters, and certainly 
they are the same kind of fish, they belong to the same family, but 
they are a smaller variety. 

The Chairman. Which of these waters is adjacent to the district 
represented by Mr. Woodruff? 

Mr. Fordney. Saginaw Bay, and Thunder Bav also. 






UNITED STATES-CANADA FISHERIES. 17 

The Chairman. lie has introduced a l>ill practically the same as 
this hill except that he excludes Saginaw Bay. 

Mr. Fordxey. Yes. Thunder Bay is in his district: Sand Beach 
is not. 

1 do not think there would be any objection to the signing of 
the treaty excluding the waters of Saginaw Bay because there is no 
doubt about its not being international water. It is landlocked 
almost entirely. 

Mr. Harbison. In this schedule are there any other waters that 
are absolutely State waters included in here '. 

Mr. Fordney. I think not. 

Mr. Fairciiild. I think Dr. Smith can throw a little light on this 
subject. 

i r. Smith. There i-^ a great deal in what Mr. Fordney says, and 
this subject ought to be made the hasis of a special investigation. 
There is a. great deal in the claims of these fishermen. 1 am satisfied 
that the fish which they catch in such large quantities in Saginaw- 
Bay is a very small species that never attains any considerable size 
and could not !>>■ caught in the size of mesh prescribed here. 

Thr Chairman. Well, if Saginaw Bay is excluded from the opera- 
tion of the law it would not he effective. 

Mr. Fordney. That will meet my objections. I would like to sec 
the others included, hut perhaps that can not be done, because those 
waters may be considered international waters, hut Saginaw Bay is 
in off the main land and is divided by the Cherites Island right at 
the outer end of the bay. 

Dr. Smith. It is a rather interesting commentary on the claims 
of the fishermen, that they are catching these small herring and 
putting them on the market as whitefish. If they are whitefish, 
then they arc undersize and are sold in violation of State laws. We 
have had occasion to examine a great many of these fish coming out 
of Saginaw Bay. and have placed the matter before the Food and 
Drugs Board. The fishermen are willing to catch them as herring, 
but they want to sell them as whitefish. 

Mr. Fordxey. Yes: the fishermen admitted that, because the 
whitefish is the most delicious that grows, excepting the speckled 
trout, and by labeling them "whitefish" they could get a better 
price for them. Now, they catch suckers in the Saginaw Bay waters 
and in the inlets and bays, and those fish are all sold for trout! There 
are two kinds of suckers in our waters, one is the mud sucker and 
the other is not, and the flesh of the fish that is not the so-called mud 
sucker is as white as the meat of a whitefish. They resemble very 
much the flesh of the red snapper. 

Mr. Difexderfer. The bones are tied up in bundles? 

Mr. Fordxey. Yes. They sell them in carloads, but they sell 
them under the name of other fishes. All I want excluded there is 
Saginaw Bay. 

Now, Mr. Webb, representing the firm of Winston, Payne & Shaw, 
of Chicago, is here. They represent very large fishing interests, 
the Booth interests, and they wanted to he heard. 

The Chairman. Are they here? 

Mr. Fordxey. No; they are in Chicago. 
32257—14 2 



18 UNITED STATES-CANADA FISHERIES. 

The Chairman. The bill is going -to be acted on one way or the 
other to-day. We must act on it to-day because our time is bo 
limited. 

Mr. Harrison. Do you know what their objection is '. 

Mr. Fokdney. I do not know anything about that except that 
they are very strongly opposed to it. 1 have received a telegram 
from them about it. They have extensive fisheries in the Great 
Lakes. 

Mr. Ainey. They might be permitted to file a brief. 

Mr. Townsend. We must gel this bill out today if we get it out 
in time to keep faith with Canada, must we not, Mr. Chairman? 

The Chaikmax. Yes, we have to do whatever we are going to do 
to-day. 

Mr. Fordxey. Here is a telegram from one of the largest concerns 
in Saginaw Bay, which I would like to read to you [reading:] 

Wherever the words "Georgian Bay" appear in the bill they should he followed 
or preceded by the words "Saginaw Bay?' Both Saginaw Bay and Georgian Bay 
should be exempl from Hie bill This is very important. 

I will leave the telegram with you. 

Mr. Webb. Of course, if you have got to report this bill right 
away, there is no help for it, but I fear that people like these are 
going to be very much opposed to this closed season for sturgeon. 

Mr. STEENERSON. That was gone over in the hearings, and 1 
think we had the facts to show that it was not necessary to have a 
closed season for sturgeon, f have sent this bill up there, but I 
have not yet received any information. There has not been time 
yet, but if it were possible to postpone the consideration of this bill 
for two or three days 1 may have the information. _ . 

The Chairman. I wish it were possible to postpone it, but if we 
are going to act on it in accordance with the request of the British 
Government there will be no time left. 

Mr. Towxsend. You will have time to appear before this com- 
mission on these regulations before they go into operation. It does 
not become effective until the 1st of January. 1015. 

The Chairman. Yes; the commission is going to meet for the 
purpose of changing these regulations. 

Mr. Harrison. And report to the next session of Congress. 

Mr. Steenerson. I think the general scope of the bill is all right, 
but I think it is useless to tack a closed season on to sturgeon up 
there. 

The Chairman. We will have to take up this other bill, because I 
understand there is going to be a roll call pretty soon — No. 13005. 

Mr. Townsend. I move that the bill be favorably reported. I 
have studied this question of the decreasing supply of food iishes a 
good deal, and the Commissioner of Fisheries has now an extensive 
program of education of the people, to give them an understanding 
of the value of saving their food fishes, and I think that this bill is 
along the line of the economic movement, and that we ought to 
report it out and let the Commissioner of Fisheries go ahead with 
this work. 

The Chairman. Before that is done, we ought to amend it as to 
Saginaw Bay. 

Mr. Cooper. 1 think we ought to have some understanding as t~> 
why they put out Saginaw Bay. 



UNITED STATES-CANADA FISHERIES. 19 

The Chairman. Because it is not an international water. 

Mr. Cooper. Well, why did they include it '. 

The Chairman. There must have been some mistake aboul it. 
The commissioner has agreed that it should be excluded. 

Mr. Cooper. I did not know that. 

Mr. Fairchild. The language of this bill is that, these regulations 
shall apply to Lake Huron, excluding Georgian Bay. Georgian Bay 
was excluded because the Canadians agreed to it, and since Saginaw 
Bay has been mentioned, the Canadians are willing to exclude that 
also. Now, the bill that I have here is Mr. Woodruff's bill. I find 
that Mr. Woodruff has excluded Saginaw Bay at one place in the hill 
and not in the other. He has excluded it on page 5, the fust page of 
the schedule, ''excluding Saginaw Bay and Georgian Bay," and I 
move that it be also excluded on page 10, in the paragiaph on the 
Great Lakes system, the last line but one of that paragraph, after the 
word "excluding" and before the word "Georgian," insert, the words 
""Saginaw Bay and," between "excluding" and "Georgian." 

Wherever ' ' Georgian Bav " occurs in the bill also include "Saginaw 
Bay." 

Mr. Temple. Preceding "Georgian Bay" in that phrase, "Lake 
Huron, excluding Georgian Bay." Insert between "excluding" and 
"Georgian Bay," wherever that phrase occurs, the words "Saginaw 
Bay and." I move that those words be inserted in the bill. 

The Chairman. Mr. Temple moves that we insert, wherever the 
words "Georgian Bay" occur, just preceding it the words "Saginaw 
Bay and" 

(The motion of Mr. Temple was carried.) 

Mr. Townsend. I move that we report the full bill, making the 
amendment, apply to that bill. 

(The motion of Mr. Townsend was carried.) 



